PROGRAMME DESCRIPTION: Using real-world cases, innovation and rhetorical tools to teach social pharmacy

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46542/pe.2021.211.555568

Keywords:

Course, Denmark, Innovation, Rhetorics, Social pharmacy, Youth

Abstract

Background: Innovation refers to the process in which individuals or organisations transform ideas into novel products, services or processes. Pharmacy graduates are increasingly expected to have the competencies necessary to find innovative solutions to medicine-related challenges, particularly solutions addressing patient´s need and societal aspects of medicine use.

Objective: To describe and discusses the rationale, development, implementation and evaluation of the pharmacy course ‘Contemporary Social Pharmacy’ (CONSOC), and to summarise lessons learned.

Methods: Several methods and models were used to develop, run and evaluate the course. The course examination consisted of a written report and an oral presentation and defence of the report. The course was evaluated through a student assessment questionnaire and oral and written feedback from case providers and the teachers.

Results: Three selected case reports representing particularly innovative solutions are described. The student evaluations revealed that nine out of 14 course learning objectives were either fully or partly fulfilled, and that what students liked best from the course were the teamwork, the open discussions, the real-world cases and the innovation features. The teachers and case providers also found the course rewarding and extremely positive.

Conclusion: Teaching innovation opens up new possibilities for educators and researchers. The CONSOC course introduced several novel components, but the increased complexity of the course also presented challenges to students and faculty alike.

Author Biographies

Lotte Stig Nørgaard, Copenhagen University, Denmark

Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences

Mathias Møllebæk, Copenhagen University, Denmark

Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science, Department Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences

Per Liljenberg Halstrøm , Copenhagen School of Design and Technology (KEA), Denmark

  

Nina Louise Fynbo Riis , Gentofte Hospital, Denmark

Center for HR & Education

Vibeke Brix Christensen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark

Department of Pediatric and Adolescence Medicine

Lourdes Cantarero Arevalo, Copenhagen University, Denmark

Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Department Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences

References

Baregheh, A., Bowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision. 47 (8), 1323-1339. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578

Branquinho, C., Kelly, C., Arevalo, L. C., Santos, A., & Gaspar De Matos, M. (2020). 'Hey, the authors also have something to say': A qualitative study of Portuguese adolescents’ and young people's experiences under COVID 19. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(8), 2740-2752. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22453

Cain, J. (2016). A Pharmacy Elective Course on Creative Thinking, Innovation, and TED Talks. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 80 (10), Article 170

Cantarero-Arévalo, L., Perez Vicente, R., Juarez, S.P., & Merlo, J. (2016). Ethnic differences in asthma treatment among Swedish adolescents: A multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 44(2), 184-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815614749

Chapelle, C.A. (2007). Challenges in Evaluation of Innovation: Observations from Technology Research. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 30-45, https://doi.org/10.2167/illt041.0

Christensen, C.M., Anthony, S.D., & Roth, E.A. (2004). Seeing What´s Next: Using Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change. Harvard Business School Press.

Copenhagen Health Innovation (2019). Collaboration Health Innovation Toolbox (COBOX) (online). Available from: https://cobox.dk/en/about-cobox/

Design Spirits. (n.d.). Design Spirit Methodology (online). Available from: https://designsprintkit.withgoogle.com/methodology/overview

Druedahl, L.C., Yaqub, D., Nørgaard, L.S., Kristiansen, M., & Cantarero-Arevalo, L. (2018). Young Muslim Women Living with Asthma in Denmark: A Link between Religion and Self-Efficacy. Pharmacy. 6(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy6030073

Halstrøm, P.L. (2017). Rhetorical Tools for Discovery and Amplification of Design Arguments. Design Issues. 33(1), 3-16.

Hawton, K., Simkin, S., & Deeks, J.D. (2003). Co-proxamol and suicide: a study of national mortality statistics and local non-fatal self-poisonings. British Medical Journal, 326 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1006

Hedeland, R.L., Jørgensen, M.H., Teilmann, G., Thiesen, L.R., Valentiner, M., Iskandar, A., Morthorst, B., & Andersen, J. (2013). Childhood suicide attempts with acetaminophen in Denmark: characteristics, social behaviour, trends and risk factors. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 41(3):240-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494812474122

Lee, J.L., Gurses, A.P., Kim, J.M., Suarez-Cuervo, C., Brown, R., & Xiao, Y. (2018). Towards a More Patient-Centered Approach to Medication Safety. Journal of Patient Experience, 5(2), 83–87.https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373517727532

Petersen, M. A., Øllgård, J.L.D., & Nørgaard, L.S. (2019). Contextualizing Study Drugs - An exploratory study of perceptions and practices among study counselors, general practitioners, psychiatrists and from student polls. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(10), 1204-1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.10.005.

Phillips, J. (2021). How to Assess an Innovation Training Program (online). Availabele from: https://innovationmanagement.se/2013/06/12/how-to-assess-an-innovation-training-program/

Reynierse, J.H. (2012). Toward an Empirically Sound and Radically Revised Type Theory. The Journal of Psychological Type: 72(1).

Sacristán, J.S. (2013). Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 13(6). http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/13/6.

Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, reflexive and strategic questions? Family Process, 27, 1–15.

University of Copenhagen (2020a). Course description for 'SFAB20038U Contemporary Social Pharmacy’ (online). Available from: https://kurser.ku.dk/course/sfab20038u/2020-2021.

University of Copenhagen (2020b). Innovation toolbox (online). Available from: https://innovationenglish.sites.ku.dk/contact/

University of Copenhagen (2021a). The WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in the Patient Perspective on Medicines Use (online). Available from: https://whocc-meduse.ku.dk/

University of Copenhagen. (2021b). SUND Innovative Hub – where students test ideas in practice (online). Available from: https://sundhub.ku.dk/sund-hub-uk/

Vestergaard, S., Nørgaard, L.S., Traulsen, J.M., & Kaae, S. (2017). Pharmacy Interns' Perception of Their Professional Role. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 81 (1), 10. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe81110

Published

27/09/2021

Issue

Section

Programme Description